Governance Models for Cultural Districts - A Report by James Doeser and Anna Marazuela Kim - Global Cultural ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Governance Models for Cultural Districts A Report by James Doeser and Anna Marazuela Kim Commissioned by the Global Cultural Districts Network
GOVERNANCE MODELS FOR CULTURAL DISTRICTS GCDN
Contents
4 Foreword
7 Executive Summary
10 Introduction
13 Approaches to governance in cultural districts
20 Income, expenditure, representation and decision-making in cultural districts
24 Case Study: QUARTIER DES SPECTACLES MONTREAL
27 Case Study: WEST KOWLOON CULTURAL DISTRICT
30 Case Study: EXHIBITION ROAD CULTURAL GROUP
34 Case Study: 22@ BARCELONA
38 Case Study: DALLAS ARTS DISTRICT
42 Case Study: MUSEUMSQUARTIER WIEN
45 Putting the results in context
48 Best practice in district governance
51 Conclusion
54 Appendix 1: Methodology
62 Appendix 2: References
64 Appendix 3: Acknowledgements
GOVERNANCE MODELS FOR CULTURAL DISTRICTS GCDN
This report was commissioned by the Global Cultural Districts Network
(GCDN). We are grateful for the input and advice from our members and
other contributors.
About the authors Dr James Doeser is a freelance researcher, writer and consultant based in
London. He works with artists, cultural organisations and policymakers in the
UK and overseas to apply rigorous research to the development of policy,
strategy and programmes of activity. Until 2013 he was a senior researcher
at Arts Council England. He is currently on the advisory board of the journal,
Cultural Trends, an Honorary Research Associate at the UCL Institute of
Archaeology and a Research Associate at King’s College London (with whom
he has published major reports on the history of arts and young people and
culture in the service of soft power at the United Nations).
Dr Anna Marazuela Kim is an art and architectural historian, independent
scholar and research fellow of the Thriving Cities Lab at the Institute for
Advanced Studies in Culture at the University of Virginia, where she advances
research on the role of art and aesthetics in civic thriving. Since 2011, she
has been a member of international research groups in the US and Europe
and is the recipient of numerous awards and fellowships, most recently at
the Courtauld Institute of Art in London and the Free University in Berlin.
Currently she is a Visiting Research Fellow at the Institute for Advanced
Studies at University College London.
Steering Committee Adrian Ellis, Chair, GCDN and Director, AEA Consulting
Jessica Ferey, former Deputy Director, GCDN
Anna Jobson, Director, Change Management at University of the Arts London
Beatrice Pembroke, Director, GCDN
About GCDN The Global Cultural Districts Network (GCDN) is a network of global
centers of arts and culture established in 2014 that fosters cooperation
and knowledge-sharing among those responsible for conceiving, funding,
building, and operating cultural districts. It exists to offer support to the
leadership of organisations in the public, private and non-profit sectors that
are responsible for planning and managing cultural districts, precincts and
quarters or any areas with a significant concentration of cultural activities
and organisations through convenings, research, and collaborations. GCDN
is an initiative of AEA Consulting.
3
GOVERNANCE MODELS FOR CULTURAL DISTRICTS GCDN
Foreword
A couple of years ago, when GCDN was in its infancy, we did a poll of the
issues that most preoccupied actual and potential members – that is, people
responsible for planning and managing cultural districts. There were some
differences in the preoccupations of ‘start up’ districts and established ones,
and some geographic differences. But there was a remarkable consistency
with respect to the high ranking given to governance – the mechanisms
by which strategy is set and overseen; the ways in which operational staff
are held to account for their actions; and the ways in which stakeholders’
perspectives inform planning and management.
The term ‘governance’ was not always used. One memorable way in which
the issue was formulated was: “How do you ensure that the right voices are
heard during the planning of a cultural district; and that the right voices are
also heard during its operation.” The point was that there are interests – artists
often, but also local community members and others – whose perspectives
are important to both planning and management, but whose ‘voices’ can
be drowned out, by central or local government, or by developers, whose
interests are important but should probably not be decisive.
Another early concern expressed was to understand the relationship
between the various business models that underpin cultural districts – the
span of responsibilities for which they are responsible and the income
streams that support them – and how this affects, or should affect, their
constitutional structure.
This report, undertaken by James Doeser and Anna Marazuela Kim, explores
these and other dimensions of governance in a systematic fashion, drawing
on interviews, questionnaires and case studies. It combines primary and
secondary research in a rich mix and seeks to synthesize a vast range of
experience drawn from a wide range of political cultures. It offers some
compelling guidelines as to good practice in governance. But it also
provides the evidence from which those guidelines are drawn so readers can
dig deeper and draw their own conclusions.
The intention is not to add to a body – in the event, a fairly slim body – of
literature on the governance of cultural districts. Rather, it is to assist people
4
GOVERNANCE MODELS FOR CULTURAL DISTRICTS GCDN
‘in the field’ and to give them support in their discussions with stakeholders
as they try to ensure that the structures of oversight and control of their
organizations are efficient, effective and equitable.
We are grateful to the authors and all involved and hope very much that the
results are of practical use to GCDN members and the wider community
engaged in cultural planning in its multiple aspects.
Adrian Ellis
Chair, GCDN
Beatrice Pembroke
Director, GCDN
UAL is contributing to the development of a Government-led cultural and
education district in East London, and is also trying to nurture and amplify
the re-emergence of this part of London as a centre for fashion businesses.
All of this in a part of London that has a rich history of industrial innovation
and creativity and is emerging as a new centre for tech innovation. The
question was: how do we design our governance, in both cases, to pay
appropriate attention to this local craft heritage and the stakeholders
invested in it, while creating enough structure and purpose to forge the
future? We were therefore delighted to be part of the commissioning and
steering group for this piece of research into the governance of cultural and
innovation districts. Key insights for us are the attributes of good governance
and the need for flexibility as well as – most critically – the importance of
involving local communities and respecting their rights to the city. There’s
an opportunity for the GCDN to build a wider movement of cultural districts
working in this way – we’re in!
Anna Jobson
Director of Change Management, University of the Arts, London, UK
5
GOVERNANCE MODELS FOR CULTURAL DISTRICTS GCDN
“
The most recent literature on cultural
districts advocate a mode of governance
that is networked across hierarchies
and sectors, highly collaborative, and
responsive to the concerns of citizens
and society.”
James Doeser and Anna Marazuela Kim
6
GOVERNANCE MODELS FOR CULTURAL DISTRICTS GCDN
Executive
Summary
Introduction This report, commissioned by the Global Cultural Districts Network (GCDN),
draws on primary research and a literature review to capture good practices,
and identifies which stakeholders should be “at the table” for informed and
effective decision making and oversight. The research has also revealed the
range of business models that underpin these governing entities, reviewing
how cultural districts are generating revenue and expending it. The research
is intended to be fully international in scope, with useful lessons for GCDN
members and other practitioners around the world.
Method Each governance model provides an example for future and existing
cultural districts to learn from and shows how cultural districts may
incorporate appropriate representation of stakeholders in decision making
and oversight.
7
GOVERNANCE MODELS FOR CULTURAL DISTRICTS GCDN
Cultural district The research began with an extensive review of existing studies of cultural
governance districts. This literature review was supplemented with two pieces of primary
research: an online survey for managers of cultural districts (which gathered
26 responses) and six in-depth interviews which formed the basis for six case
studies. The districts chosen for the case studies were:
Quartier Des Spectacles, Montreal (Canada)
West Kowloon Cultural District (Hong Kong)
Exhibition Road Cultural Group (UK)
22@ Barcelona (Spain)
Dallas Arts District (USA)
MuseumsQuartier Vienna (Austria)
The governance and management models of cultural districts almost
invariably reflects the specific prior conditions, constraints and ambitions
of each individual district. They are established in a mould that is formed
by the political dynamics within their own nations and cities, rather than
as a result of a theoretical choice with prior knowledge of how effective
any one governance model will be in practice. However, as will be evident
in the examples in this study, successful governance often requires the
re-evaluation and adaptation of a cultural district’s original model in
response to changing circumstances and aims, whether they be political,
cultural, economic or social. One potential contribution of this research is
to offer reflective lessons from the experience of others that balance the
influence of immediate factors on choices about governance or impediments
to their realisation.
The governance and management of cultural districts is often divided into
two broad categories: those run at some stage in their development in a
“bottom-up” fashion (representing a grass-roots move by local community
groups, business or artists) and those run in a “top-down” way (often with an
impetus from central or local government).
The survey revealed a diverse 'Successful governance
range of governance structures
adopted by cultural districts within often requires the
these two types. Local cultural re-evaluation and
organisations, higher education adaptation of a
institutions and politicians are
most likely of all stakeholders
cultural district's
groups to be on the boards of original model in
cultural districts. Artists, local response to changing
businesses and local community
circumstances
groups are most likely to be
involved through advisory groups. and aims, whether
The leadership of districts included they be political,
in this study generally wanted cultural,economic or
to reach out more to the private
sector and to individual artists to
social.'
bring them into their governance
structures, recognising they were
currently under-represented.
8
GOVERNANCE MODELS FOR CULTURAL DISTRICTS GCDN
Regardless of their particular governance structures, most cultural districts
in the study identify their prime responsibilities as attracting visitors and
programming activity. Even those with a mission to animate public space
with events or artwork often also reported a desire to develop business
activity, innovation and entrepreneurialism.
Cultural districts in this study tend to draw revenue from the beneficiaries of
their activities (audiences, businesses, etc.) in addition to raising funds from
organisations that fall within their territorial footprints (which may be direct
or indirect beneficiaries of the district’s activities). They do this through
mechanisms like donations, in-kind support, subscriptions or levies.
Despite shared aims and features of management, cultural districts are
unique in their specific vision and the contexts of their potential realisation.
Each must confront their own specific challenges with the assets and
objectives that are most relevant to them. However, by scanning the diverse
set of approaches taken around the world, and by delving more deeply
into a handful of specific case studies, this research has been able to draw
out principles and strategies that can usefully inform the development and
design of a district’s governance model.
Principles of good This research into cultural districts has uncovered a range of good ideas
governance for developing the governance of cultural districts. As a result, this report
proposes a good governance attributes framework with four dimensions,
each indicative of what a cultural district’s governance structure needs to
have for it to be successful and sustainable:
—— LEADERSHIP: foster good leadership
—— STRATEGY: ensure pro-active and responsive planning
—— OPERATIONS: make best use of resources to deliver consistent quality
—— PARTNERSHIP: develop appropriate partnerships and embrace advocacy
When is comes to research into cultural district governance, the field is in
its infancy. Many of the districts that participated in this research were in a
state of critical re-evaluation or renewal in terms of their governance. We
hope that this research will benefit cultural districts currently engaged in this
process. The insight uncovered in this study will be crucial for districts who
are confronting the prospect of change, whether in their own structures or
the contexts in which they are operating. It will also be instructive for cultural
districts that are just beginning to develop their model of good governance.
9
GOVERNANCE MODELS FOR CULTURAL DISTRICTS GCDN
Introduction
Why study governance? This research has examined the various models of governance, oversight
and funding that have been developed around the world, to compare their
respective strengths and weaknesses, and to understand the different
structures of governance that exist. Each governance model provides an
example for future and existing cultural districts to be inspired by and learn
from.
Recognising a diversity Attempts to study cultural districts at a global scale have frequently had
of approaches to confront the fact that every cultural district is unique, with seemingly
little replicable or applicable models for other districts in other contexts.
Nonetheless, the data and case studies presented in this report seek to draw
out useful comparisons and identify principles and practices that underpin
the most successful cultural districts. Although the report is primarily about
cultural districts, the research has also encompassed design districts and
innovation districts.
Methodology This research began by reviewing existing studies of cultural districts, and
supplemented that insight with two additional pieces of data-collection: an
online survey for managers of cultural districts and six in-depth interviews.
The survey was designed to capture a range of information about the
structures, objectives, governance approaches, income and expenditures
of cultural districts. There were 26 responses to the survey, with information
from districts old and new, large and small, from more than a dozen different
countries around the world. This information was supplemented with six
in-depth interviews with managers of a sub-set of the cultural districts who
had completed the survey. The interviews formed the basis for six case
studies. These were designed to understand better the thinking behind the
governance of cultural districts, what worked well and what lessons could
be learned about governance more generally. The result of this analysis
was not to arrive at an all-encompassing typology of cultural districts, but
rather to understand how the contexts and objectives of cultural districts
relate to their management and governance. A fuller description of the study
methodology can be found in Appendix 1.
10GOVERNANCE MODELS FOR CULTURAL DISTRICTS GCDN
Classifying cultural A small number of researchers have attempted to classify cultural districts
districts and their along the lines of their governance and management styles. These analyses
tend to look at what is tangibly different about districts: their activities and
governance structures procedures (especially financing and programming) rather than what their
governance and management structures are like (which are often a response
to their circumstances and specific objectives).
Cultural districts have stubbornly resisted classification and taxonomy, partly
due to their sheer variety, but also because each one often comprises a
context-specific response to local challenges or opportunities. However, a
useful high level typology, developed by Stantagata1 and Francesconi2 goes
as follows:
—— Industrial cultural district (spontaneously born from an agglomeration of
related organisations in pursuit of mutual support)
—— Institutional cultural district (formalising the existing production
processes, often with a ‘Made In …’ style of badging or branding)
—— Museum cultural district (the result of a top-down imposition made by
policymakers revolving around a museum or collection of museums)
—— Metropolitan cultural district (demarcating the area in which many
cultural organisations are based whose character and strengths are a
result of that agglomeration)
It has been more common to simply define all of these types of districts as
“advanced cultural districts”3.
Amanda Ashley’s study for Americans for the Arts classifies cultural districts
according to structures of management. She identifies six distinct types,
defined by their lead organisation, and suggests what each type can offer:
1 Stantagata (2002)
2 Francesconi (2015)
3 Sacco et al. (2008) expand this to describe “an idiosyncratic mix of top-down planned
elements and emergent, self-organised activities coalescing into a model of local
development in which cultural activity displays significant strategic complementarities with
other production chains within typical post-industrial contexts” p3
11GOVERNANCE MODELS FOR CULTURAL DISTRICTS GCDN
—— A government-led structure, whether municipal, sub-municipal, county,
regional or state level, creates the possibility for “larger district planning
with access to political, financial, and infrastructure support.”
—— A related model, non-(or quasi) governmental, is managed by an
organization as deemed by a government body. In some cases, the
government provides funding and support, but management is taken up
by the non-governmental agency, for example, a Business Innovation
District (BID). Its management model is cited as a success due to its
ability to create strong public-private partnerships, particularly around
property development, and its organisational and administrative support
of the arts as an activator of an urban corridor.
—— Real-estate interests and/or commercial arts businesses typically
characterise a for-profit management model, which is often run by a
development company and involves entrepreneurs. At its best, it can
foster a creative hub of eclectic partners from the arts and industry to
renew an urban area and negotiate periods of economic crisis.
—— A more typical management model is one directed by a non-profit arts
organisation. Reasons for choosing this leadership style include their
eligibility for grant funding for non-profits and ability to pull together arts
interests and communities in the area.
—— Non-profit, non-Arts organisations, often Community Development
Corporations (CDCs), generally use existing arts assets to create a
cultural district.
—— The final model is artist-led, which is often supported by members’ fees
and can prioritise creative placemaking and community development4.
Ultimately, this project chose to devise as comprehensive and as rational a
set of district categories as possible. The online survey asked respondents
to identify which categories their district belonged to, but also left space for
districts to self-define where necessary.
Structure of The report continues with an outline of the main findings of the online
the report survey, followed by a handful of case studies that illustrate the complexities
of cultural district in more detail. The report concludes by putting all this
new data in context, reflecting on how it adds to existing research before
articulating what factors are necessary for the good governance of cultural
districts.
4 Ashley (2014): pp 8-20
12GOVERNANCE MODELS FOR CULTURAL DISTRICTS GCDN
Approaches to
governance in
cultural districts
The research began with an understanding of purpose, asking respondents
about both what role their district played, and how they described its
governance structure.
What are the functions of your cultural district?
(please select all that apply)
Attracting domestic visitors
Creative production
City/region branding
Attracting international visitors
Education
Community development
Creative consumption
Preservation of cultural heritage
Entrepreneurship and innovation
Social equity
Regeneration
Other (please specify)
5 10 15 20 25 30
13GOVERNANCE MODELS FOR CULTURAL DISTRICTS GCDN
Regardless of their formal governance structures, the bulk of the cultural
districts in the study are dedicated to attracting visitors and programming
activity. Even those with a mission to animate public space with events or
artwork often also reported a desire to develop business activity, innovation
and entrepreneurialism. The respondents who selected “Other” identified
functions such as being a network for the exchange of ideas, and working to
improve public realm.
The survey built upon existing research (with deliberation within the research
team) to arrive at an expansive list of terms to describe different governance
models. The sheer variety of cultural districts responding to the survey (and
cultural districts around the world) is reflected in the data from respondents.
How would you define your cultural district?
(please select the most appropriate from the list, or select 'Other')
Metropolitan cultural district
Creative district
Entertainment district
Theatre district
Institutional cultural district
Innovation district
Museum district
Industrial cultural district
Entrepreneurship and innovation
Other (please specify)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
It was heartening to find that most respondents were able to find one
of the above categories to define their cultural district. Those selecting
“Other” emphasised the mixed nature of their districts. To tackle the issue of
governance models head-on, the survey asked cultural districts to pick from
a list of possible approaches, and select which most closely matched their
structure.
14GOVERNANCE MODELS FOR CULTURAL DISTRICTS GCDN
How would you describe your current governance model?
(select all that apply)
Not-for-profit organization
Government-led
Dues-paying membership structure
Anchor institution (one organization leads
the efforts behind the cultural district)
Public/Private partnership
Real estate owners
Innovation District
Business Improvement District
Distributed model
Ad hoc (ie: no legal structure, but overseen
by a voluntary advisory board
Trust or Foundation
Private
Other (please specify)
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Some of these categories are in effect subsets of others, and are therefore
not mutually exclusive. Districts can therefore be in more than one of
the choices that were offered in the survey. Many respondents therefore
selected more than one option. Unpacking the specific structural quality
that determines the most appropriate category by which to describe
their governance model has required judgement calls. Those selecting
“Other” were in a state of formation or flux regarding their governance
model, or operated through a BID-like entity, or were a subset of another
larger organisation. When asked to share any formal description of their
governance structure, yet more variety and complexity was apparent in
the responses to the survey. The broad categories of governance models
are outlined in more detail below, drawing from descriptions developed in
previous research into district structures as well as the full responses to the
online survey.
.
15GOVERNANCE MODELS FOR CULTURAL DISTRICTS GCDN
Not-for-profit These are often CDCs, which generally partner with existing arts
organisation organisations to create and run a cultural district. They might be coming
together to address the challenge of increasing property prices by offering
below-market rents, for example, or providing artists loans for façade
improvements and other enhancements to the public realm. They might be
funded through a dues-paying membership structure in which subscribers
have some say in the governance of the district. Alternatively, the district
may be run by a Trust or Foundation or private entity who may provide
resources up-front or on an ongoing basis.
Sometimes the not-for-profit organisation that leads a cultural district is
itself an arts organisation which acts as an anchor institution for the district.
A typical management model for cultural districts is when an individual arts
organisation (or consortium of organisations) extend beyond their building
or footprint to create a cultural district. Such entities are frequently eligible
for grant funding from trusts and foundations, and are able to pull together
arts communities in the area. They are led by arts interests so are able to
be creative and risk-taking from an artistic point of view, without being
overly constrained by political or commercial concerns. Examples of cultural
districts that reflect this model include:
—— Temple Bar, Ireland
—— Dallas Arts District, USA
—— Pittsburgh Cultural Trust, USA
—— RAB/BKO Réseau des Arts à Bruxelles/Brussels Kunstenoverleg, Belgium
—— Navy Pier, USA
—— Exhibition Road Cultural Group, UK
—— Playhouse Square, USA
—— Quartier des spectacles Partnership, Canada
Government-led These districts are led by government at the municipal, sub-municipal,
county, regional or state level. Typically, the district is managed by a
municipal body that reports directly to the mayor and that is owned and
funded by the city. The district offers benefits such as subsidised space to
arts organisations within the district. This model is especially vulnerable to
unforeseen cutbacks in public funding at a state or local level, and as a result
districts often seek private funding to shore up their finances in the long
term. The case of Changdong Art Village project in Changwon City (South
Korea), a test case for national urban regeneration, illustrates the negative
results of tight, top-down control by city government, which attempted to
regulate the working hours of artists and the aesthetics of their presence
in the area, resulting in restricting the creative talents of the community5.
Examples of government-led districts include:
—— Seattle Centre
—— The Denver and Los Angeles Performing Arts Companies
—— Cultural and Education District, QEOP London (working title), UK
—— Districte Cultural’H, Spain
5 Park (2016): p175
16GOVERNANCE MODELS FOR CULTURAL DISTRICTS GCDN
Public/Private This structure can be guided by an informal collaboration or a formal
partnership partnership between government and the leaders of the cultural district. In
some cases, the government provides funding and support, but management
is taken up by the non-governmental agency, for example, an Innovation
District or Business Improvement District (BID) that pragmatically functions
in a Distributed model. BIDs interact in complex ways – collaboratively,
conflictually and co-operatively - with local and state government and
accountability and management challenges result from their interdependent
(but arms-length) relationships with local governments.
These entities succeed when they are able to create strong public-private
partnerships, particularly around property development and the sound
administrative support of local arts organisations. Examples include Leimert
Park, an historically African-American arts district in South Los Angeles
(now recognised as the most significant of its kind in the city). It developed
as an arts district in an organic, incremental or bottom-up way, led by
artists, cultural enterprises and small local businesses that organised along
horizontal networks over the course of 40 years. Prior to 2010, there was little
formal coordination to its leadership.
A plan announced in 2013 to develop a major public infrastructure project
– a light rail line that included a stop in the district spurred neighbourhood
leaders to create a centralised planning program in 2014. “Vision 2020,”
funded by the City of LA and a local BID, aims to ensure the identity and
unique cultural space of Leimert Park by engaging the community in dialogue
about its future, and also creating a strong and inclusive leadership. The
horizontal networks that have sustained the district and were crucial to
responding to this challenge continue to be a strength; this includes a
network of organisers who coordinate weekly via face-to-face meetings.6
There are further examples in South Korea, where cultural districts are a
relatively common way of structuring the cultural sector. At the Daein Art
Market in Gwangju City, the city government provides subsidies to artists
already in the area whose rents, galleries and programs are managed by
a commissioned project body, and in the Totatoga project in Busan City,
the government provided behind-the-scenes funding to a well-established
network of artists. In effect, the city government took the role of the artists’
patron, but without interfering in the running of the district7. Other examples
of this type of district include:
—— West Kowloon Cultural District, Hong Kong
—— LAC Lugano arte e Cultura, Switzerland
—— Culture Mile, London
—— Lincoln Road Cultural District, USA
—— Bras Basah Bugis Precinct & National Museum of Singapore
6 Borrup (2014): pp14-16
7 Park (2016): pp176-178
17GOVERNANCE MODELS FOR CULTURAL DISTRICTS GCDN
Real estate owners This arrangement is often run by a development company led by
entrepreneurs. The cultural district likely begins with a private developer
who partners with a city’s Development Corporation to redevelop an area
and thereby support both commercial enterprise and arts organisations. By
not relying on vulnerable public financing the fate of the district rests of the
probity and profitability of the private enterprise that runs it. At the same
time the interests of the development corporation (rather than any other
stakeholder) tends to shape the district’s priorities.
When a cultural district is owned and run by a private company, its
governance structure is dictated by the individual decision-makers within
that entity. There may or may not be oversight by a board of trustees or
shareholders. The degree to which the company’s owners or directors
take a direct interest in the running of the district will depend on local
circumstances and individual personalities. The governance structure that
is established to run the district can therefore be fully integrated into the
parent company, or at arms length in an independent trust or similar vehicle.
The distance between executive decision-makers and local stakeholders can
affect the priorities of individual real estate districts. The top-down approach
taken at Frederiksholm-Dokoen in Copenhagen saw the district pursue
wider social concerns such as housing for families, rather than specific and
immediate concerns that took advantage of existing assets and activity
within the area (which revolved around an art school on the site)8.
Other examples of this real estate cultural districts are:
—— MuseumsQuartier Wien, Austria
—— Alserkal Avenue, UAE
—— Genesis Beijing, China
Ad hoc (i.e.: no In one study of the Veneto region, the performance of cultural clusters
legal structure, but depended not on a top-down structure or formal entity, but rather on a
successful network of energetic partners who were able to exploit their
perhaps overseen by proximity and connectedness9. These clusters operated much like a formally-
a voluntary advisory constituted district but did not have a dedicated secretariat or structure in
board) place.
Often, this type of cultural district is artist-led, and is frequently supported by
fees from a founding group of entrepreneurial members to finance a creative
cluster to prioritise creative placemaking and community development. The
Northeast Minneapolis Arts District, Inc. (NEMAD), the city’s first cultural
district, was created in 2014 by artists and local business owners (among
others). It was designed to address the need for formal leadership to
create a more stable environment for artists amid changing real estate and
commerce in the area. The district is located in an industrial area of the city
which had attracted artists since the 1980s and eventually developed into
a nationally-recognised center for the arts and culture. A decentralised,
informal network of organisations and individuals has been key to the area’s
identity and success. Clearly artists are crucial to this particular governance
8 Lidegaard, Nuccio & Bille (2018)
9 Calcagno et al. (2012)
18GOVERNANCE MODELS FOR CULTURAL DISTRICTS GCDN
structure, and the question remains whether the decentralised network
model, in the absence of a single entity managing it, could adequately
respond to large challenges in the district, such as the sale of anchor
buildings10. Examples of this type of cultural district include:
—— Aotea Arts Quarter, New Zealand
—— East London Fashion Cluster, UK
—— Brooklyn Cultural District
From governance to In addition to looking at governance models, we also sought to understand
management how the management of cultural districts is undertaken around the world.
The survey asked respondents to identify the main sources of their income
and expenditure, and who and who was not in a position to shape the
direction of the districts.
10 Borrup (2014): pp11-13
19GOVERNANCE MODELS FOR CULTURAL DISTRICTS GCDN
Income, expenditure,
representation and
decision-making in
cultural districts
Income A stable and defensible revenue stream is important for the stability of
the cultural district and the quality of its activities and outputs. Top-down
and bottom-up districts face different challenges in the accumulation and
sustainability of their income, with the former being blessed with a lump
sum but one that needs sustaining and proofing against changes in political
priorities, and the latter needing to incrementally build up capital and
momentum.
Cultural districts in this study tended to draw revenue from the beneficiaries
of their activities (audiences, businesses, etc.) in addition to raising funds
from organisations that fall within their territorial boundaries (which may be
direct or indirect beneficiaries of the district’s activities). Not replicating or
duplicating existing taxes and duties was important. For cultural districts to
ask for or expect any additional subscriptions there must be a distinct value
proposition, not something that replaces or displaces existing providers or
infrastructure.
What is the primary source of your funding?
(please select one from list)
State or local government
National government
Subscriptions/membership dues
Individual donations
Sales (event tickets, catering etc)
Other (please specify)
2 4 6 8 10 12
20GOVERNANCE MODELS FOR CULTURAL DISTRICTS GCDN
Even where the sources listed above were not selected as the “primary”
source, they nonetheless tend to feature in the suite of other sources from
which districts drew their funding. “Other” sources of income identified but
not listed above include corporate donations, sponsorship, and grants from
foundations.
Expenditure What is the primary focus of your spending?
Programming
Staff: internal
Events
Advertising
Public space management
Staff: contract
Property (maintenance)
Other (please specify)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The above list represents both the main areas of spending by cultural
districts as well as the categories that also make up the other spending
concerns of the districts (so for example the districts for whom advertising
is the main area would also have staff and programming costs that took up
the remainder of their budget). Those who selected “Other” had spending
commitments on things like consultation, strategy development and
construction.
21GOVERNANCE MODELS FOR CULTURAL DISTRICTS GCDN
Representation This complex chart shows that local cultural organisations, higher education
institutions and politicians are most likely of all the groups listed above to
be on the boards of cultural districts. Artists, local businesses and local
community groups are most likely to be involved through advisory groups.
How are stakeholders represented in the work of your cultural district?
(please select all that apply)
Higher educational institution
Trusts or Foundations
Local/national tourism office
Local cultural organizations
Local businesses
Local community groups
National government staff
Local government staff
Local politicians
Developers
Artists
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Other Not represented On advisory group On board On staff
22GOVERNANCE MODELS FOR CULTURAL DISTRICTS GCDN
Are there any stakeholders you feel are missing from current governance
structure? (please select all that apply)
Developers
Artists
Foundations/funders
Educational institutions
Local businesses
Local community groups
Local cultural organizations
National government staff
Local politicians
Other (please specify)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Clearly, districts in this study wanted to reach out more to the private sector
and to individual artists. Some of the respondents who selected “Other”
chose to explain their selection from other categories to the survey, or
highlighted the need for more local representation and one respondent
voiced concerns over the diversity of their current governing bodies.
Learning more from The 26 responses to the online survey painted a complex picture of many
case studies districts with multi-layered governance structures with multiple stakeholders
and financial relationships, many of which were in a state of flux. Below we
document six case study districts in order to understand in more depth the
choices that cultural districts face in their governance and management (and
how their specific circumstances shape those choices). The six districts were
chosen to illustrate a broad variety of district types and locations world-
wide. They are:
—— Quartier Des Spectacles, Montreal (Canada)
—— West Kowloon Cultural District (Hong Kong)
—— Exhibition Road Cultural Group (UK)
—— 22@ Barcelona (Spain)
—— Dallas Arts District (USA)
—— MuseumsQuartier Vienna (Austria)
23GOVERNANCE MODELS FOR CULTURAL DISTRICTS GCDN
Case Study
Quartier Des
Spectacles Montreal
Origin story The idea to create a Quartier des Spectacles (QDS), a cultural hub in
downtown Montreal, was first developed in 2001, a year prior to a major
summit which sought to shape the future of the city. The mayor was
convinced that culture and creativity could be used to attract more
economic, touristic and cultural activity to Montreal. The city is home to
many high-performing cultural institutions like Cirque du Soleil, it has a rich
musical scene creating what is called the “Montreal sound”, it has been
declared UNESCO Design City, has a thriving post-production movie industry
etc.
“The task at hand was not to create a neighbourhood from scratch, but
rather to identify it, highlight its rich cultural assets and equip it with the
infrastructure to accommodate outdoor events.”11
11 http://www.quartierdesspectacles.com/en/about/history-and-vision/
24GOVERNANCE MODELS FOR CULTURAL DISTRICTS GCDN
The Quartier des Spectacles Partnership was created in 2003 as a not-for-
profit organization and has several mandates, including the development
and the promotion of cultural programming on its public venues.
Activities The Partnership operates and animates the public spaces, in addition to
hosting over 40 festivals and events taking place each year on its territory.
The Partnership also provides logistical support for these events, seeking
to improve the visitor experience, the impact of the events as well as their
cost-effectiveness.
The Partnership plays a critical role of co-ordinating between venues,
promoters, business, and civil society in and around the district. There is
also an important marketing and promotion role for them: signalling to the
general public, to residents and workers in Montreal, as well as to tourists,
what is happening in the public spaces that it oversees downtown.
Governance and The QDS Partnership was founded with 20 stakeholder members; now there
strategy are 60 members. The QDS Partnership performs the role of the district’s
secretariat, which reports to the Board of Directors. The Board set the overall
direction of the district and do not get involved in day-to-day management
decisions. City and Provincial representatives are on the Board, but not as
voting members, they have observer status.
In addition to a Board of Directors, the Partnership has six “active committees,”
each with responsibilities for: Audit; Governance and ethics; Illumination;
Programming; Performance venues; and Marketing and communications.
Since a few years, the Partnership is in the process of expanding their
membership, to better reflect the various interests in the district.
The current strategy of the QDS Partnership has 10 goals:
1. A neighbourhood in balance
2. A hub of artistic creation, innovation, production and presentation
3. An international centre for artistic creation and cultural destination
4. The street: live wire and path of discovery
5. A coherent and complete neighbourhood, connected to its surrounding
neighbours
6. Public spaces: places for artistic expression
7. Permanent infrastructure and facilities designed for cultural activities
8. A unique signature, a distinctive iconography
9. A vibrant, contemporary flavour
10. Quartier des spectacles Partnership, creator and promoter of the vision
The Partnership actively measures the economic activity in the QDS and the
attendance at events.
Revenue and CAN$147m was granted by city provincial and federal funding at the start
expenditure of the district. The assumption was that this investment would be repaid
through increased economic activity.
25GOVERNANCE MODELS FOR CULTURAL DISTRICTS GCDN
Membership of the QDS Partnership is open to local businesses and
organisations. A modest annual subscription fee ($100-500) is drawn from
each member organisation. Some revenue comes from renting special
equipment and services to the events hosted on the public venues. Just
over 80% of the revenue of the Partnership comes from the Montreal city
government. The Partnership does not actively seek commercial sponsorship
for its events in the district, recognising it would deflect revenue from other
organisations in the area.
The bulk of Partnership’s expenditure is spent on programming, such as
commissioning events and artwork in the public spaces over which it has
responsibility.
Strengths and The QDS has become a “model district” for others around the world,
weaknesses of regularly hosting delegations from other cities looking to establish similar
entities with similar structures. The Partnership has a high degree of
governance model transparency and accountability. It is neither a “closed shop” nor does
it conduct its activities in secret. This operational model may result from
the personalities and political norms that shape public administration in
Montreal. It may also result from the relative maturity of the district and
the fact that it has enjoyed relatively generous levels of support from local
political and commercial partners.
Most local arts and entertainment organisations have a place on the Board
of Directors or one of its active sub-committees. The QDS Partnership
acknowledge that it could do more to represent the voices of artists in its
decision-making structure but it also has to navigate between a multitude
of existing interests in the district. The political geography of the downtown
area does not perfectly map onto district: it overlaps two economic
development districts and the Partnership is currently considering how to
best liaise between them.
26GOVERNANCE MODELS FOR CULTURAL DISTRICTS GCDN
Case Study
West Kowloon
Cultural District
Origin story The idea of creating a cultural district in West Kowloon dates back to the
late 1990s, when the local government was looking at a site in the harbour
to develop. Shortly after, the concept of building the West Kowloon Cultural
District12 featured in the Hong Kong Chief Executive’s Policy Address. The
government of Hong Kong carried out a series of studies over the course
of a two-year consultation; the public and members of the arts community
expressed their aspirations for and expectations of the West Kowloon
Cultural District. The consultation consisted of public forums, focus group
meetings, a display of the proposed plan, discussions via online social
networks, a Town Hall meeting, seminars and roundtable discussions.
In 2006, the Hong Kong government proceeded to establish an independent
statutory authority to develop the cultural district. In 2008, after consulting
with the local arts community and other stakeholders, the government
recommended developing various performing arts venues, a museum and
12 https://www.westkowloon.hk
27GOVERNANCE MODELS FOR CULTURAL DISTRICTS GCDN
an exhibition centre; it also recommended the district be a low-density
harbour-front development with ample open space and close ties to
its neighbouring community. The final plan was approved by the Chief
Executive in January 2013. The first of the district’s cultural facilities will
open at the end of 2018.
Activities Sited on Victoria Harbour, the West Kowloon Cultural District is one of
the largest cultural projects in the world. Envisioned as a quarter for arts
and cultural learning, it will combine theatres, museums, exhibition and
performance spaces including the Xiqu Centre; the M+ Museum and
Pavilion; the Hong Kong Palace Museum and the Lyric Theatre Complex. The
District also aims to cater to aspects of daily life like living, working, dining
and shopping, with easy access between venues along a main vehicular-
free artery called The Avenue. A 23-hectare public park on the site will
incorporate open-air performance space, as well as display works of art.
The district will be easily and conveniently accessible for all and there will
be an emphasis on environmentally friendly features (with a minimal carbon
footprint). Traffic, services and parking will be located below ground level,
maximising safety and comfort whilst minimising pollution and congestion.
Governance and Since July 2008, the cultural district has been managed by The West Kowloon
strategy Cultural District Authority (WKCDA), a statutory body established by the
Hong Kong SAR Government under the West Kowloon Cultural District
Authority Ordinance (Cap. 601). The WKCDA is responsible for the planning,
development, operation and maintenance of the arts and cultural facilities
and related facilities in the West Kowloon Cultural District.
The WKCDA’s governance structure (as stipulated by its Ordinance) is
comprised of the Board the Committees, the Subsidiaries and the Consultation
Panel. It committees cover Executive, Audit, Development, Performing Arts,
Remuneration, Investment and the Board of the M+ Museum Limited.
Since its establishment in 2008, the Board has acted as the executive
branch of the District Authority. It promotes engagement with the public
and stakeholders. It was chaired by the Chief Secretary for Administration
until 2017, when he was replaced by the first Non-Government Chairman, Mr
Henry Tang. The board consists of a Vice-Chairman, 14 non-official members,
three public officer members and the Chief Executive Officer of the WKCDA,
who serves as an ex-officio member. Some of the individual institutions of
the district are establishing their own Boards, for example the M+ Museum
and HK Palace Museum. More are being planned.
The Consultation Panel exists to gather public views on matters related to
the functions of the Authority. The Panel is composed of members coming
from different sectors of the community with relevant knowledge and
experience. Its meetings are open to the public.
Revenue and The district was provided with an upfront endowment of HK $21.6 billion from
expenditure the government (about USD $2 billion) to cover a proportion of construction
costs for culture and arts facilities. Its funding model was originally based on
28GOVERNANCE MODELS FOR CULTURAL DISTRICTS GCDN
revenue that will be generated by performance venue rentals, programming
ticketing income, retail, dining and entertainment rentals, and fundraising.
The income of the Authority last year was reported as 477,492 (HK$000).
As of 2017, the Authority has been granted the right by the government to
develop commercial elements in the district (hotel/office/residences) for its
income, with the aim of ensuring financial security going forward. The district
is developing 20 commercial buildings with a 30-year time-frame “right to
operate”, which will provide rental and other income whilst also sparking new
local businesses.
The majority of the district’s expenditure currently goes towards
construction. This will change in the future to the various operating costs of
the district: facilities and programming, exhibition costs, operating theatres,
museums, etc. The district is starting to program what happens after its
initial launch, but much will depend upon the revenues derived from its new
commercial elements.
Strengths and The district’s governance is extremely transparent. It maintains a website
weaknesses of with extensive documentation of its reports, including financial, planning
and activities, as well as invitations to forums for civic participation in the
governance model process.
The Board has a clear mandate and provides a very effective strategic
direction in a well-ordered and regulated manner. The Board, Committees
and Consultation Panel hold regular meetings (nine last year) to address the
development of the district. As a result of the government’s commitment to
the district, there has been a huge influx of auction galleries and art galleries
to the area.
One weakness of the district’s governance is that it can be rigid and risk
averse at times. It has many stakeholders to satisfy who themselves may
be risk-averse. It is looking to better connect to foundations/funders and
educational institutions. The district is a flagship project for Hong Kong
and enjoys strong government support, but has taken nearly ten years from
inception for the facilities to open. The delays have come from engaging the
public in the project at each stage. This has invited considerable controversy
and criticism towards both government and the Authority.
29GOVERNANCE MODELS FOR CULTURAL DISTRICTS GCDN
Case Study
Exhibition Road
Cultural Group
Origin story Exhibition Road Cultural Group (ERCG) is a partnership of leading cultural
and educational institutions advancing innovation and learning in science
and the arts in historic South Kensington, London. The district has its origins
in the legacy of the Great Exhibition of 1851, making it one of the first
planned cultural quarters in the world. The institutions had worked together
informally for many years on joint initiatives, including seeking improvements
to the public realm and in 2003, a design competition was held by the Royal
Borough of Kensington and Chelsea for a plan to improve the Exhibition
Road, which runs the length of the cultural quarter to improve the experience
for visitors. In 2006, the ERCG was formalised as a group. Its initial formation
was largely driven by directors of leading cultural institutions already in
the area and the first co-chairs were the Director of the Royal Geographic
Society and Director of Learning from the V&A. The redesign of the street
by architects Dixon Jones as an open shared surface with larger pedestrian
area, was completed in 2011, with an investment of £29m from the two local
authorities and Mayor of London.
30GOVERNANCE MODELS FOR CULTURAL DISTRICTS GCDN
Activities The ERCG is comprised of the following member institutions:
—— Natural History Museum
—— Science Museum
—— Victoria and Albert Museum
—— Imperial College London
—— Goethe-Institut
—— Institut français
—— Ismaili Centre
—— Kensington Palace
—— Royal Albert Hall
—— Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
—— Royal College of Music
—— Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851
—— Royal Geographical Society (with IBG)
—— Serpentine Galleries
—— The Royal Parks
—— Design Museum
—— Ognisko Polskie
—— South Kensington Estates
The members of the ERCG work together to improve how it feels to
visit, work, study and live in the district by enhancing the public space.
They facilitate an understanding of what is happening in the district and
promote what the area has to offer. They also help each other to promote
innovation, inspiration and learning, a central aim of the district. The ERCG
also works to improve co-ordination and communication between its
members on joint public programming activities. Examples of such activity
include a Music Day festival that celebrated the diversity of international
cultures; Creative Quarter, a day of over 60 free workshops, talks and
activities for 13-19 year olds providing career advice and inspiration
from leading designers, scientists and artists; and commissioned events
bringing together leading international artists with scientists, researchers
and creative thinkers.
Governance and The ERCG is an independent not-for-profit organisation. It is a Registered
strategy Charity and a Limited Company that operates according to Articles of
Association of the Exhibition Road Cultural Group. As a charity, the ERCG
is required to publish an annual report with financial statements (which are
available online) and hold an AGM for members.
The nine-person Board of Directors (Executive Committee) is drawn from
the 17 member organisations, of which two are associate members (Design
Museum and South Kensington Estates). Current co-chairs of the Board are
from the Natural History Museum and Imperial College. Chairs are appointed
every year at the AGM, without limit on tenure. It has the following subgroups
working on specific themes:
—— Business resilience (wider than the membership, which extends to local
businesses near South Kensington, meets quarterly)
—— Communications group (meets quarterly)
—— Master planning (meet less frequently: every six months)
31GOVERNANCE MODELS FOR CULTURAL DISTRICTS GCDN
—— Events advisory group (residents, council officers, businesses, to look at
programs of activity in the public realm, meets three times a year)
—— Annual school event in the district (with Creative Quarter)
The ERCG also works with artists on specific projects, and for example
had a major artist on the selection panel for a recent commission. They
work closely with local government and politicians: for example, the Local
Authority is represented on the Board by a Senior Council Officer. The
ERCG works with developers on public realm and infrastructure projects
in the district, such as the underground station, to encourage them to
bring forward plans that enhance the cultural quarter and therefore play
a leading role in shaping the future development of the area. The group
is currently seeking further improvements to the public realm to respond
to changes since the road was built – including more than 5 million extra
visits a year, the new V&A courtyard opening onto Exhibition Road and the
security situation.
Revenue and The bulk of the district’s income is from members’ subscriptions, and this
expenditure has been constant since the founding of the district. The ERCG also brings in
project funding throughout the year, as needed, but on a small scale (about
£75k last year). Organisations pay subscriptions of (£2,000-£21,000 per year
depending on turnover). They are supplemented by individual donations and
grants from trusts and foundations. The district has an annual turnover of
£150,000.
A few years ago, the ERCG focused funding on destination marketing to
encourage greater cross-fertilisation of audiences between venues and
attract new visitors. The first step was to reach the 10,000 people working
in the district, to foster a greater sense of shared identity and belonging.
About half of the district’s expenditure goes towards its own administrative
costs (its small secretariat) with the remainder going to commissions,
events, research and consultancy. In the future, the district expects to
spend more on supporting improvements to the visitor experience in the
public realm and promoting innovation in arts and sciences through its
activities.
Strengths and The model is transparent, since as a charity the ERCG is required to publish
weaknesses of a Directors’ Accounts and Reports that detail where they spend their money
and how they pay their staff. The ERCG draws its strength from having the
governance model Directors and Deputy Directors of member organisations on the Board,
who are very engaged and focused on what matters in the district. There is
strength in an alignment of goals among the ERCG’s members, and many of
the institutions are international, such the Goethe Institut.
One weakness of the current model is that the Board, being comprised
of senior leaders in their organisations, does not have as much time as
they would like to work with the Secretariat. Also, because the Board is
entirely drawn from its members, there is not necessarily much constructive
challenge or outside perspectives on decision making, potentially
leading to “group think.” They see potential for more involvement from
wider stakeholders not represented in the current structure, namely local
32You can also read
